|
The Tobacco Toll |
|
  Friday . Nov 20 |
|
Big Tobacco Not A Good Corporate Citizen Organizations and businesses generally participate in philanthropic endeavors because they are interested in being good corporate citizens. Corporate philanthropy obviously benefits the grantee, but it also advantages the grantor through tax breaks and good publicity. Many organizations are philanthropic in one way or another. Why, then, are we singling out the efforts of the tobacco industry, and, more specifically, Philip Morris for its recent wave of grants to fund prevention programs with the National 4-H Council, the West Virginia Department of Education and the Denver Public School System? The reason is simple. The tobacco companies have never been interested in being good corporate citizens. Furthermore, their list of philanthropies could easily be mistaken for their list of market share targets. The tobacco companies have a long and sordid history of showing their “philanthropic” side whenever they face the threat of real changes in their marketing practices. Take, for instance, a memo by Philip Morris Senior Vice President Ellen Merlo written in 1995, “If we don’t do something fast to project the sense of industry responsibility regarding the youth access issue, we are going to be looking at severe marketing restrictions in a very short time.” In contrast, the industry has actively opposed and attempted to dismantle successful tobacco prevention programs such as those in California and Massachusetts. A Tobacco Institute document, dated January 29, 1991, spelled out the industry’s next steps to out-maneuver “unfair and counterproductive federal, state and local restrictions on cigarette advertising.” The strategy called for the industry to align with “credible child welfare professionals and educators” to “bait anti-tobacco forces to criticize industry efforts” and “seize the political center.” These documents suggest that its latest philanthropies are less from the goodness of its heart and more for the benefit of its corporate image. Recently, Philip Morris has approached organizations that provide the tobacco industry with a direct line to its customer base youth. The National 4-H Council, the West Virginia Department of Education and the Denver Public Schools have all been invited to join the Philip Morris public redemption program by creating and administering tobacco “prevention” programs. These organizations are dedicated to the development, education and health of children which directly contradicts the tobacco industry’s behavior over the last several decades. The West Virginia Department of Education accepted the money, as did the National 4-H Council, while over half of the state 4-H groups and the Denver Public Schools have rejected it. The tobacco industry’s motives are quite simple. Partnerships with legitimate and respectable youth organizations give the industry legitimacy by making it appear reformed and responsible. The truth is the industry is using these “philanthropies” to avoid fundamental change in its marketing and manufacturing practices that would truly reduce youth tobacco use and save lives. “It seems to me our objective is…a ‘media event’ which in itself promises a lot but produces little,” stated then Tobacco Institute Executive Vice President Franklin Dryden in a 1979 memo. This scam must be exposed for the shameless public relations effort it is. Ultimately, these tobacco industry efforts will do more harm than good for the organizations involved as well as for tobacco prevention efforts. The tobacco industry’s affiliation with these groups particularly the education system teaches a very damaging lesson to our youth: decades of public deception, manipulative marketing practices and deadly product modifications can all be forgiven and forgotten with a few generous, well-placed grants. The unfortunate reality is that the tobacco industry has not changed. Philip Morris may indicate it does not want kids to smoke, but it has not significantly curtailed the marketing that has made its brands the favorite among children. The company also continues to oppose efforts to protect youth from tobacco. Approximately 85 percent of youth who smoke prefer the three most heavily advertised brands, including nearly 60 percent (both boys and girls) who smoke the Philip Morris flagship brand Marlboro. Between 1988 and 1997 alone, this campaign was responsible for convincing 1.2 million children to begin smoking. About 300,000 of these new smokers are expected to die prematurely from tobacco-related disease. The tobacco industry knows that 90 percent of all smokers begin at or before the age of 18. Court documents released during litigation with the tobacco industry show that it recognizes the importance of the youth market and has actively sought to capture it as the next generation of “replacement” smokers. Is it possible for the tobacco industry to voluntarily fund a truly effective program aimed at reducing youth tobacco use, one that would ultimately destroy its essential market? By making these grants, the tobacco companies should not gain the credibility they seek. The recently released tobacco industry memo shows that the motivation behind these programs has not been to reduce tobacco use among kids, but rather to gain positive publicity, deflect political pressure, avoid government regulation and create the appearance of action. Unless it takes serious steps such as restricting marketing and advertising and accepting FDA regulation, the tobacco industry must be seen as responsible for the problem, not as part of the solution. Finally, while the tobacco industry claims there are “no strings attached” to these grants, the truth is quite the opposite. In West Virginia, for example, Philip Morris will have input into the entity chosen to conduct the evaluation of the program it is funding. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call us at 202-296-5469. K/Acc Proj Final/Philanthropic, General/Memo-Chronicle of Philanthropy 8-16-99 |
|
|
